<img height="1" width="1" style="display:none" src="https://www.facebook.com/tr?id=192888919167017&amp;ev=PageView&amp;noscript=1">
Monday, March 18, 2024
March 18, 2024

Linkedin Pinterest

Miller: Greatness eludes Obama

President lacked the crisis, character, capacity to achieve it

The Columbian
Published:

All presidents disappoint. It comes with the job, the unreasonable expectations Americans have for their presidents, and the inherent conflict and disconnect between campaigning (promising people all they can have) and governing (explaining to people why they won’t get it).

So Barack Obama isn’t the first president to fail to meet expectations — and he won’t be the last. But he has come to embody something else, too: The risks and travails of reaching for greatness in the presidency without the crisis, character and capacity necessary to achieve it.

“Now, there are some who question the scale of our ambitions, who suggest that our system cannot tolerate too many big plans,” the new president declared in his 2009 inaugural address. “… What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them, that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer apply.”

From pledging an Earth-moving transformation, Obama has been reduced to hitting singles and getting his lonely paragraph right. After drawing early comparisons to Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Delano Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy all rolled into one, Obama has fallen so low that journalists wonder whether Jimmy Carter is not a more appropriate parallel.

Plenty of explanations have been offered: Republicans have been unwilling to work with him, or the president hasn’t reached out to them. The stimulus was too small, or it was far too big. Health care reform was a historic achievement, or it was a terrible overreach. The president has tried to be too bipartisan, even post-partisan, or he has not been partisan enough.

Time is needed to judge the Obama presidency on its merits and in comparison to other occupants of the Oval Office. But however historians and the public ultimately rate Obama, the greatness that he sought — and that was expected of him — will probably not be his. He has certainly not been a failed president. But neither is Obama likely to be judged a great or iconic one. Unlike FDR, JFK or even LBJ, there will not be a BHO.

The undeniable greatness of presidents such as George Washington, Lincoln and Roosevelt requires three elements: a crisis that severely threatens the nation for a sustained period, setting the stage for historic change; the capacity to extract from such a crisis some long-term transformative changes through political smarts, persuasion and deal-making with Congress; and the character needed for effective leadership.

At war with himself

Obama’s crisis — a complex recession emerging from the financial and housing sectors — was sufficiently severe that he could not break it easily or quickly, but not so catastrophically encumbering that it enabled him to tame the politics in Washington as Lincoln or FDR had done.

As for Obama’s governing capacity, the president did not so much miss his FDR/LBJ moment as misread it. Most of the public wanted a way out of the terrible recession and the long and costly wars in Afghanistan and Iraq; Americans also hoped for renewed confidence in their president and faith in their government’s competence. Obama has had neither the partisan dominance that comes with huge congressional majorities, like those enjoyed by FDR and LBJ, nor the working bipartisanship with the Republicans to bring it about.

The Affordable Care Act of 2010, his signature legislative achievement, will be Obama’s legacy, and in the years to come, it may be seen as a moral and economic victory. But there are simply too many complexities and uncertainties to call it transformative now.

Finally, on character, Obama has had a Jekyll-and-Hyde problem. Part pragmatist, part believer, but always capable of seeing all sides of an argument, the president has seemed too often at war with himself on how ambitious he wants to be, whether on climate change, tax reform or the size of the stimulus.

That personal conflict has made it too hard for him to make peace with his public. By nature, Obama is not a partisan, a populist or a revolutionary. Instead, he finds his comfort zone in conciliation and accommodation, and in the empirical world of rational policy analysis. Those can be useful qualities in many circumstances, but they won’t make you a transformative president.

Aaron David Miller is a distinguished scholar at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. He is the author of “The End of Greatness: Why America Can’t Have (and Doesn’t Want) Another Great President,” from which this essay is adapted.

Loading...